--- Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Attractor Theory of Friendliness > >> > >> There exists a describable, reachable, stable attractor in state space > >> that > >> is sufficiently Friendly to reduce the risks of AGI to acceptable levels > > > > Proof: something will happen resulting in zero or more intelligent agents. > > Those agents will be Friendly to each other and themselves, because the > > action > > of killing agents without replacement is an irreversible dynamic, and > > therefore cannot be part of an attractor. > > Huh? Why can't an irreversible dynamic be part of an attractor? (Not that > I need it to be)
An attractor is a set of states that are repeated given enough time. If agents are killed and not replaced, you can't return to the current state. > > Corollary: Killing with replacement is Friendly. > > Bad Logic. Not X (replacement) leads to not Y (Friendly) does NOT have the > corollary X (replacement) leads to Y (Friendliness). And I do NOT agree > that Killing with replacement is Friendly. You're right. Killing with replacement (e.g. evolution) may or may not be Friendly. > > Corollary: Friendliness does not guarantee survival of DNA based life. > > Both not a corollary and entirely irrelevant to my points (and, in fact, in > direct agreement with my statement "I'm afraid that my vision of > Friendliness certainly does permit the intentional destruction of the human > race if that > is the *only* way to preserve a hundred more intelligent, more advanced, > more populous races. On the other hand, given the circumstance space that > we are likely to occupy with a huge certainty, the intentional destruction > of the human race is most certainly ruled out. Or, in other words, there > are no infinite guarantees but we can reduce the dangers to infinitessimally > small levels.)" My thesis statement explicitly says "acceptable levels", > not "guarantee". You seem to be giving special status to Homo Sapiens. How does this arise out of your dynamic? I know you can program an initial bias, but how is it stable? Humans are not the pinnacle of evolution. We are a point on a curve. Is it bad that Homo Erectus is extinct? Would we be better off if they weren't? -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
